TEXT [Commentary]

15. Hazael murders Ben-hadad (8:7-15)

7 Elisha went to Damascus, the capital of Aram, where King Ben-hadad lay sick. When someone told the king that the man of God had come, 8 the king said to Hazael, “Take a gift to the man of God. Then tell him to ask the LORD, ‘Will I recover from this illness?’”

9 So Hazael loaded down forty camels with the finest products of Damascus as a gift for Elisha. He went to him and said, “Your servant Ben-hadad, the king of Aram, has sent me to ask, ‘Will I recover from this illness?’”

10 And Elisha replied, “Go and tell him, ‘You will surely recover.’ But actually the LORD has shown me that he will surely die!” 11 Elisha stared at Hazael[*] with a fixed gaze until Hazael became uneasy.[*] Then the man of God started weeping.

12 “What’s the matter, my lord?” Hazael asked him.

Elisha replied, “I know the terrible things you will do to the people of Israel. You will burn their fortified cities, kill their young men with the sword, dash their little children to the ground, and rip open their pregnant women!”

13 Hazael responded, “How could a nobody like me[*] ever accomplish such great things?”

Elisha answered, “The LORD has shown me that you are going to be the king of Aram.”

14 When Hazael left Elisha and went back, the king asked him, “What did Elisha tell you?”

And Hazael replied, “He told me that you will surely recover.”

15 But the next day Hazael took a blanket, soaked it in water, and held it over the king’s face until he died. Then Hazael became the next king of Aram.

NOTES

8:7 Damascus. This ancient city (cf. Gen 14:15; 15:2) was (and still is) the capital city of Aram (present-day Syria). Possibly this journey by Elisha was to fulfill Elijah’s original mountaintop commission to “anoint Hazael to be king of Aram” (1 Kgs 19:15). Although the present text does not indicate that this was the actual reason for Elisha’s trip, the end result is largely—but not literally—the same (i.e., no actual anointing is said to have taken place; cf. the note on 1 Kgs 19:15-16). (For other parallels between 1 Kgs 18–19 and 2 Kgs 6–9, see Leithart 2006:213.)

King Ben-hadad. See the second note on 6:24 for a rehearsal of the issues surrounding this repeated Aramean dynastic name (or title). Following the enumeration of the various “Ben-hadads” listed there, the king here should probably be identified as Ben-hadad II (= Adad-idri). Some scholars, however, would see the present section of 2 Kings as indicating the existence of yet another Ben-hadad, one who reigned briefly after Adad-idri before being assassinated by Hazael (Kelle 2006:427).

8:8 Hazael. Heb., khaza’el [TH2371, ZH2599] (El [God] sees). This is the infamous Aramean usurper or, at least, commoner (see the note on 8:13), well-attested in the Assyrian inscriptions (cf. the note on 1 Kgs 12:29). Hazael reigned some 40 years (a lengthy reign by contemporary standards). He applied increasing military pressure to Israel, ­Philistia, and Judah throughout his reign; he eventually annexed Gilead outright and almost certainly reduced Israel west of the Jordan River to nothing more than a vassal state (cf. ABD 3.83). He also resisted repeated attacks from Shamanezer III of Assyria, who was able to besiege Damascus at one point, forcing Hazael to pay heavy tribute. Amos 1:3-4, probably written a century after Hazael’s reign, typifies both the mighty power and the notorious cruelty of King Hazael (cf. the horrific litany of atrocities in 2 Kgs 8:12).

Take a gift. This was an “audience gift” similar to that of Naaman (see the second note on 5:5; cf. 1 Kgs 14:3). As with Naaman’s gift, this gift of 40 camel-loads of Damascus’s finest products (see 8:9) is immense in scope, a typical feature of folkloristic literature (cf. the commentary on 1:1-18).

Will I recover from this illness? Ironically, this is identical to the question found in 1:2, but there the Israelite king Ahaziah asks it of Baal-zebub, “the god of Ekron.” In the present passage, the question is directed to Yahweh, the God of Israel (still, presumably a “foreign” God for the Arameans—unless Naaman’s evangelistic zeal so evident back in 5:17-18 had borne fruit!).

8:9 Your servant Ben-hadad. Lit., “your son Ben-hadad,” possibly a wordplay on the term ben [TH1121, ZH1201] (son), but more likely simply a term of filial devotion (cf. the use of “father” in 5:13, NLT mg note; 6:21). “The portrayal of the king is entirely positive, and so the reader is set up to expect a positive word from the man of God” (Seow 1999:212).

8:10 will surely recover . . . will surely die! This brief sequence represents a whole host of exegetical and theological difficulties (for an extended discussion, see Barnes 1997a:411-415; most of these issues will also be dealt with in summary form in the commentary).

8:11 Hazael. The subject of the verb “to stare” (lit., “to set, make stand his face”) is unspecified; commentators and translators therefore differ on how to read the first half of the verse (Who stared at whom? And who became uneasy?). In any case, it is clear that the “man of God” was the one who started weeping, realizing in the Spirit what a scourge to Israel Hazael would prove to be (cf. the first note on 8:8 for details).

until . . . became uneasy. This is the same expression (‘ad bosh [TH954, ZH1017], lit., “until embarrassment”) found in 2:17 (cf. the note there); possibly both there and here the expression simply signifies a long period of time. The fact that this odd expression, however, appears only at the beginning and the end of the Elisha cycle may also hint at an editorial inclusio (a narrative device signaling by some sort of repetition the beginning and the end of a prose or poetic unit). Thus, embarrassment occurs at the beginning of Elisha’s career—by means of the well-meaning but obtuse “group of prophets”; and again, embarrassment occurs at the end of his career—as he ends up endorsing (virtually anointing?) an Aramean king who will eventually cause Israel so much heartache.

8:12 terrible things. See the first note on 8:8 for a brief summary of Hazael’s military career; see Cogan and Tadmor (1988:91) for biblical and extrabiblical parallels for the horrific actions listed here.

8:13 a nobody like me. Lit., “a dog” (hakkeleb [TH3611, ZH3978]); cf. Hazael’s Assyrian epithet, “son of a nobody,” which means his lineage is not recorded and he is probably reckoned as a commoner (Wiseman 1993:214). Regarding the low estimation of dogs in the ancient Near East, see the note on 1 Kgs 14:11; for similar usages in the Lachish letters of the phrase “your servant (is but) a dog” as self-disparagement, see Cogan and Tadmor 1988:91.

8:15 a blanket. Heb., hammakber [TH4346, ZH4802], a word found only here in the MT, and usually understood as “something woven, meshwork, netting” (possibly mosquito netting, or the like [Gray 1970:532; cf. Jones 1984:445]). When “soaked in water,” it could thus act as a kind of natural air conditioner (cf. modern desert coolers or “evaporative coolers”) when hung over the bed or in the window. For a discussion of what Hazael actually did to the king, including its ethical implications, see the commentary.

COMMENTARY [Text]

Despite the interest in Hazael here, this is yet another story largely focusing on the prophet Elisha, and is most likely a part of the original Elisha cycle (perhaps strategically placed in its present position by the editor; cf. the second note on 8:11). It is, of course, also a significant story about two kings of Aram (indeed, two dynasties), the second of which eventually leads to major trouble for Israel (for details, see the notes on 8:7 and 8:8). Still, it is the Elisha tradition that I want to focus on here, and there is much to reflect on concerning his actions in this murky episode. I will organize these reflections as follows: (1) What did Elisha actually say to Hazael in 8:10? And what were his motives? (2) What did Hazael actually do to Ben-hadad in 8:15? And what were his motives? Textual uncertainties cloud the first question especially, but I suspect they should not prove insurmountable. Lexical uncertainties cloud the second question somewhat, but again, significant clarity is not beyond reach. So let us begin:

(1) In 8:10, according to the NLT, Elisha tells Hazael to inform his master Ben-hadad that he will indeed recover from his illness (which was, after all, the original subject of the inquiry and the reason for the gift in 8:9), but then Elisha immediately seems to contradict himself and tell Hazael that Ben-hadad will surely die (the Hebrew infinitives for “recover” and “die” emphasize the absolute certainty of those respective fates). Some commentators suggest that what Elisha actually meant by this apparent contradiction was that Ben-hadad will recover from his present illness, but will soon die anyway from other causes (which, after all, does prove to be the case). Others suggest that Hazael is the one who will “recover” (in the sense of “thrive” or the like), while Ben-hadad will die (it is certainly possible to read the Hebrew that way; cf. Labuschagne 1965:327-328). To complicate things further, the Qere (reading tradition) of the MT suggests reading lo [TH3807.1/2050.2, ZH4200/2257] (“to him”; thus the NLT, NIV, etc.), but the Kethiv (written version) reads lo’ [TH3808, ZH4202] (“not,” i.e., “he will surely not live” [cf. NIV footnote]). (In the Hebrew the difference between these readings is only one letter: a Waw in place of an Aleph.) The Kethiv smooths out Elisha’s otherwise apparently contradictory message, rendering his response regarding Ben-hadad’s future as entirely negative (and, once again, historically accurate). But then, how are we to understand Hazael’s report to Ben-hadad in 8:14? Was he misrepresenting Elisha’s answer? We have no clear reason to think so (the Hebrew is virtually identical to that in 8:10a). Another alternative, explored by Gray (1970:529-531), is that perhaps the oracle was meant to be Delphic (i.e., intentionally ambiguous, thus testing Hazael’s actual commitment to the ailing king; the Hebrew particle lo or lo’ could then be read as lu [TH3863, ZH4273], “would that [the king live]”). In any case, the oracle is indeed presented positively to the king in 8:14, “you will surely recover,” and we again have no reason to think Hazael is misrepresenting what he heard Elisha say. So we are back to the original question: Did Elisha lie, or did he deliberately deceive Hazael? Or, as effectively posed by Seow (1999:212), is it the case that Elisha is actually and deliberately setting up Hazael for his role in usurping the throne?

I think that perhaps Seow is posing the question too baldly but that he is definitely on the right track. Attempts to soften this difficult text (i.e., to exonerate the prophet from censure or blame) appear to be special pleading and therefore suspect (cf. Cogan and Tadmor 1988:90). Elisha knows the bitter truth—all agree to that—and the question is not therefore knowledge, but rather causality. As I argued some years ago (Barnes 1997a:413):

The main point is that Elisha knew full well what Hazael was about to do, both against his own master the king, as well as against Israel in the future (cf. vv. 11-13). Thus the present statement is probably in line with Jesus’ advice to Judas Iscariot in John 13:27, “What you are about to do, do quickly.” Jesus was hardly telling Judas to hurry up and make the decision to betray him. Rather he was demonstrating that he knew all along what was in Judas’ mind, and that Judas was determined to accomplish his dastardly deed. He might as well get on with it. This is probably the gist of Elisha’s curious response to Hazael [here in v. 10]. Elisha could see the future, and there was no stopping Hazael, so he might as well get on with it. Go ahead, lie to the king, and then kill him—you are going to do it anyway.

In any case, whether my thoughts bear the test of time or not, we can agree on three general conclusions: First, the present text somehow represents a significant fulfillment of Elijah’s commission (1 Kgs 19:15) to anoint Hazael king of Aram (cf. the first note on 8:7)—with all the complicated ethical ramifications that commission would entail. Second, it will be obvious, despite those horrendous ramifications, that Yahweh retains his sovereignty over all the earth—the land of Aram as well as the lands of Israel and Judah—and he retains ultimate control over all human leadership, whether it be the dynasty of Omri (which will soon come to a bloody end), the dynasty of Ben-hadad, or the dynasty of Hazael (or, for that matter, the dynasty of David). Finally, Yahweh’s servants the prophets (the “men of God”) are given special foreknowledge of his will—with the heart-rending implications to which such foreknowledge can lead.

(2) In 8:15 it is clear that the very next day Hazael becomes the new king of Aram, but that is about all that is clear in the verse! We do know that some sort of “blanket” (or “netting”) is involved (see the above note on the verse for details), as well as the action of “dipping/soaking in water” (tabal [TH2881, ZH3188] usually means “to dip” something into something; cf. BDB 371), and finally, some sort of “spreading” the blanket or netting (paras [TH6566, ZH7298]) upon or over the king’s face (which may simply refer to a general direction of the “spreading”). The note on 8:15 makes reference to Gray’s intriguing suggestion that wetting the “netting” here represents something entirely benign, with the water thus cooling the bedstead or room, and Hazael’s actions (or conceivably the actions of an unnamed person—the Hebrew verbs here permit such an interpretation) then to be construed as completely innocent (even though the rewetted “netting” will also serve to disguise for a time the fact that the king had expired). But that is not the prevailing view of most modern commentators, who see Hazael’s actions as far from benign. While some medieval commentators suggest that Hazael may simply have been applying cool compresses to assuage the king’s fever (cf. Cogan and Tadmor 1988:91), most moderns would follow Josephus (Antiquities 9.3.6.92-93) in simply asserting that Hazael killed the king by means of suffocation (so NLT; cf. NIV, KJV). Although Wiseman (1993:215) is correct to state that “the manner of Ben-Hadad’s death is disputed,” the tenor of the text hardly makes Hazael appear innocent, and I suspect we are to regard him as nothing less than an Old Testament Judas Iscariot: It was he who betrayed his master, bringing about in a very short time his most untimely death. No wonder Elisha wept (8:11b).